The US is trying to convince Iran that a nuclear weapons programme is not in its own best interests rather than planning military strikes, argues Ali Younes* The reason why there will be no US war or military strike against Iran in the near future and in the current political environment is that the US military command, under the guidance of its political leadership, is implementing a strategy of "deterrence" to prevent Iran from continuing with its nuclear programme. This strategy is based on the US military concept of "joint operations", released on 15 January 2009. The key question here is what would be the purpose of a military strike against Iran. Would it be designed to end the Iranian nuclear programme forever, or would it aim to delay it by few years, eventually aiming for regime change similar to the Iraqi scenario? Yet, a military strike would not bring about the change the US and Israel want in Iran. The only option remains to try to "convince" the Iranian leadership that its nuclear programme is not in its own best interests. However, Iran is also developing its own counter- strategy of "convincing" and "deterrence" against the US and Israel by establishing forward- operations bases in the Levant, Iraq and Afghanistan. Such bases and influence could serve Iran politically and militarily, should the US and/or Israel decide to attack Iran. When the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said on the US broadcaster NBC's Meet the Press programme last Sunday that "allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is unacceptable" and that the US had plans to attack Iran if needed to prevent it, his statement generated a perception among countries in the Middle East that a US and possibly also Israeli attack on Iran was imminent. It is worth noting, however, that Admiral Mullen's statement regarding Iran's nuclear programme was not new and that it did not reflect a new US position with regards to launching or not launching a military strike against Iran. General David Petraeus, the former commander of CENTCOM, and now the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said the same thing late last year. That too generated fear in the Arab world that a US attack on Iran was on the table. Admiral Mullen did not say these words for nothing, and neither did General Petraeus before him. According to the US's "Capstone Concept for Joint Operations" signed by Admiral Mullen, "defending the national interests requires not only being able to prevail in conflict, but also in deterring potential adversaries who might threaten the vital interests of the United States or its partners." "Deterrence", the concept continues, "convinces potential adversaries not to take threatening actions by influencing their decision-making." Indeed, several US officials, including Vice-President Joe Biden, have said as much, with Biden commenting last year that the United States would understand if Israel decided to launch a military strike against Iran. Biden and the US military commanders' "threatening" statements against Iran, including using Israeli power as a form of leverage, were designed, in accordance with the Capstone, to "convince those adversaries [Iran] that a contemplated action [its military nuclear programme] will not achieve the desired results, that the cost of such action will be too great, or that an acceptable situation can be achieved without it -- or some combination of the three." In other words, the current US strategy aims to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons programme through deterrence in the form of economic and military sanctions and through convincing the Iranian leadership that the costs would be too great should they choose to continue with their nuclear programme. The Iranian leadership should be influenced to think, as part of the "deterrence" concept, that they should relent and abandon their nuclear ambitions, as "an acceptable situation can be achieved without them." The domestic US political environment is also not in the mood for another war in the Middle East while the country's military is set on a withdrawal or redeployment footing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the current US strategy, US combat troops are scheduled to withdraw from Iraq by the end of this month, with all US forces being out of the country by the end of 2011. The timing is set to give the president time to prepare for the US mid-term elections and a clean run for the 2012 presidential elections. By the end of this month, the US mission in Iraq will shift from a "combat to a training and advisory role", showing that the US is unlikely to launch military strikes against Iran, at least in the near future, from the Gulf or via its B-1B or B-2 strategic bombers. During the height of the war in Iraq, the B-1B bombers maintained permanent airborne positions in order to provide rapid precision bombardment on high-value targets. This is no longer the situation. The same scenario in terms of strategic-weapons redeployment from the region will also be applied in Afghanistan when US troops start to drawdown next year. Nevertheless, the US still has immense capabilities to launch ICBMs or submarine-based missiles, as well as stealth B-2 strategic bombers, from either the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean, or from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri in the United States using multiple refuelling. The current operating environment in the region is not conducive to carrying out a successful military strike with manageable repercussions for US interests in the region and for those of its allies and partners. The Gulf Arab states would most likely be the biggest losers should the US decide to attack Iran. The current US administration does not appear to be keen on disrupting the stability of its oil-producing Arab allies and partners in the Gulf, which would only further damage the weak global economy and along with it the US's own economy. * The author is a defence and policy analyst based in Washington DC.
